Shawqu Ali, a New York deli owner, is shocked to hear that the elite Swiss watchmaker Rolex has filed a trademark infringement suit against him for calling his sandwich and beer spot "Rolex Deli."

Imagine his shock when he learned that his use of the name, and the similarity of the Rolex font on his awning and signage, was being contested by the high-end jeweler.

The deli owner choose the Rolex name because "it's a name that is associated with quality and prestige."

Well, the funny thing here is that Rolex feels the same way about the name!

To add insult to injury, Ali showed a New York Post reporter his "genuine" $200 Rolex that he now is willing to resell. These watches usually start at about, oh, $6,000. Many are able to go for a cool $30,000, so if Ali's watch was the real deal, he could sell it and recoup his losses.

Ali's defense is that "There's nothing Rolex-related on the menu. Apparently, Rolex doesn't know the difference between a sandwich and a watch. Regular people know the difference."

Um, no. It doesn't quite work that way.

Rolex has trademarked the name for basically everything and they jealously guard it because, well, so many people want to rip it off.

Every day of the week, thousands of fake watches are pumped out in China that bear the Rolex name and dilute the value of the brand.

Ali probably has one of these watches. And frankly, any guy moronic enough to rip off the Rolex name is dumb enough to think that two hundred smackers will buy him a real Rolex.

The Rolex name is actually "a portmanteau word combining the second syllable of 'horologie' and the first of 'exquise.'"

Despite an endorsement from Shaq, the Chinese apparel company Li Ning Co. failed to break into the American market.

The company is named after the towering Chinese athlete you may have seen at the last Olympic games. Their aggressive bid to take up headspace with the American consumer seems to have fallen short.

The fact is, beyond Chinese borders, Chinese brands are a challenge to establish. Studies show that 83% of consumers outside of China are unable to name one Chinese brand or company.

China's most valuable 50 brands have a combined value of $325 billion. Compare that to Apple's $153 billion, Google's $111 billion and IBM's $101 billion. Yup. Those three companies alone have more brand value.

The Asia Times, published an article entitled, China's Brands in the Shadows, which quoted a marketing professor referring to the top Chinese brands as "invisible dragons."

There are many reasons for this. From a lack of creativity in the "command-control" structure of Chinese companies to the typical North American reluctance to attach value to things "Made in China" despite the popularity of companies like Apple and Nike who sell Chinese made products.

I found an interesting article today that highlights how companies are playing with their brand names and logos to engage customers.

Much of what is covered in the article I have written about before, such as the Snickers Snacklish campaign, where the company played with the English language itself, creating words like "Peanutopolis" and "Nougatocity."

Goodyear, not to be outdone, has temporarily replaced its name with "Whoa Nelly" in some of its ads, and even used "Saint Bernard" in its ads for snow tires.

The article quotes one marketing professor saying "As you see the market changes and your brand feeling old in the minds of consumers, you want to modernize your brand to make it feel current. It's a challenging task because any time you do that, you risk alienating your current customers."

This is partly the fault of social media, partly the fault of computer graphics programs that allow people to play with brand names anyway they wish.

Companies are realizing that consumers want to have a say in the logo and even the name. They want to be part of the entire evolution of the brand.

The question that this leads to, in my mind, is how playing with the name affects the image of the brand in the consumer's mind.

At least one blogger has some interesting thoughts on this question. Essentially saying that it comes down to the fact that changing the brand identity affects current consumers differently than new consumers.

It's no surprise that new consumers seem to embrace the change, while old consumers, not so much.

MotorAuthority assured readers that the Viper will "continue to be a serious, performance-focused driver's car without the dilution of more practical, mundane concerns that might be introduced if it were not under the sole dominion of the boutique brand."

This is exactly the positioning Chrysler would want. The SRT brand name allows room for the company to build car lovers' cars.

Is this true?

Well, I didn't perceive the old Dodge Vipers as being a type of family car. But the SRT moniker gives it even more cred.

Car and Driver weighed in on subject, stating "As long as the brute is powered by a heart-stoppingly powerful V-10, then we don't particularly care what it's called."

The brand name change allows for those who are into fast cars to get what they want, while those who are more brand conscious also get a boutique-style bonus.

Jalopnik came to an interesting realization stating, "let me get this straight - since Fiat's taken over they've now added three new brand sales channels? Yes, the Italians are monuments to efficiency, aren't they?"

Well, yes.

The Dodge brand has been greatly streamlined, thank you. Look at the way they have moved Ram away from the brand and now created a space for American sports car lovers to invest in a super brand.

The news coming out of the sordid world of trademark infringement has me wondering what some people are thinking.

I couldn't imagine what was going through the mind of the joker who decided to violate the Steelers' trademark on The Terrible Towel by creating The Terrible T-Shirt.

The Terrible Towel, a product of the club, has been sold to fans for 35 years and bears an obvious relation to the the team. The Terrible T-Shirt? Not so much.

One Eugene Berry of Eugene Berry Enterprise decided to sell a crate of The Terrible T-Shirt garments emblazoned with the phrase "The Terrible T-Shirt: A Pittsburgh Original."

Berry had even forged a letter to assure the National Retail Graphics that he had the authority to produce these things.

The judge who deemed them fraudulent noted, "'The Terrible' has been a registered trademark and in continuous use for more then twenty consecutive years [and] illustrates the characteristics of both a fanciful, distinctive mark and of a famous mark."

The Terrible Towel has even been a part of American pop culture. Terrible Towels have traveled to the top of Everest and even into outer space.

So, to rip off the trademark is almost unthinkable.

In my opinion, people who willfully violate trademarks are highly careless. They knowingly, publicly, break the law for uncertain gain proving that they defy normal logic.

The Raiders are, yet, another NFL team who have recently sought justice over the trademark infringement of the Raider Nation mark.

The Nation's Giant Hamburgers chain set up a billboard that uses the team's colors and typography to read, "Raid A Nation's."

Shhh. The super secret gang of mercenaries formerly known as Blackwater who killed 17 civilians in Iraq in 2007 and then changed their name to "Xe" is now changing its name again.

This time to "ACADEMI."

Why would a bunch of tough guy mercs ditch the name "Xe?"

Maybe because it was really, really silly? Kind of like a name Dr. Evil would think up?

It was pronounced "Z" as in "xenophobioa" but imagine radioing that one in from your super secret location.

Okay, so now they want to be known as ACADEMI.

ACADEMI's new ruler stated, "The message is that we're changing the company, and the name just reflects those changes. We have new owners, a new board of directors, a new management team, new location, new attitude on governance, new openness, new strategy - it's a whole new company."

He added, cryptically, that "this wasn't a Blackwater-to-Xe change. This was a Xe to Academi change." As in, Xe was the same as Blackwater but ACADEMI is totally different from Blackwater.

One blogger points out that "It's hard to keep up with these guys' name changing but I suspect that is the point."

Most importantly, they want the name to be more "boring," as Ted Wright, the president and chief executive, stated.

Blackwater and Xe just sound so evil.

In any event, the new management ultimately wants to get permission to go back to Iraq, where I am sure they will be welcomed with open arms by the people there.

They might have tried for a more friendly name, as one blogger suggested:

The news that Apple has been denied the iPad trademark in China is very intriguing.

First of all, this is a costly problem for Apple that illustrates just how important, and difficult, trademarking a name in China is.

Secondly, it illustrates the value of a brand name.

Hong Kong-based Proview Technology claims to have had the trademark for iPad since 2000. Apple was under the impression that Proview had sold its rights to the iPad name in 2006 when it sold the "global trademark" for the "IPAD" name for about $54,000 after their attempt at a tablet failed.

Proview claims these rights did not include rights for China, arguing that their Shenzhen-based company Proview Technology is using a different trademark than the one formerly owned by Proview Electronics.

The Municipal Intermediate People's Court in Shenzhen has upheld this claim.

Proview is now suing Apple for trademark infringement to the tune of $1.6 billion, possibly to help dig their own company out of its $64 million debt.

I agree with one blogger's statement saying, "It must really suck to be the person in charge of securing trademarks for Apple right now."

Some bloggers say this is all nonsense, but it is a great illustration of how difficult even big companies like Apple find trademark law in China, and how it seems that the deck is stacked against foreign companies.

Apple may, therefore, have to sell the iPad under another name in China.

Mashable has a few suggestions including, iCan'tBelieveIt'sNotTheiPad, which was the clear leader in its naming poll this morning.

Another name catching up in the polls? iSlate, a name that was quite liked before the iPad name became official.

Slate Computing currently owns the trademark for the iSlate name, which coincidentally lists one of Apple's trademark specialists on it's board of directors.

I am pleased to see that Chrysler's Dodge brand is bringing back yet another well loved name from the past.

The Dart, a new four-door compact sedan that we will see at next month's North American International Auto Show in Detroit.

It's a modern vehicle that is built upon a Fiat architecture that will have "eye-catching exterior proportions set off from every angle by dynamic lines and curves, along with advanced technology, to deliver class-leading aerodynamic performance."

In other words, do not expect a retro car.

Dodge has created a teaser site for the car and it is a far cry from the boxy "Swinger" car of the 1960s.

People generally remember the Dart as a street racer the kids used to amp up in their spare time.

The Dart came in many manifestations from 1960 to 1976, including the Swinger version, as well as the 1968 Slant Six version, known for its endurance and trustworthiness.

One Chrysler executive stated, "The Dart is one of the more positive names in Chrysler's brand-portfolio history. Also, anybody under 40 isn't going to remember Dart and that helps them because they are about to create something new."

This is a very Italian looking car, part of Chrysler's aggressive bid to get into the competitive midsize industry.

The Dart brand name is clearly the replacement for the Hornet name that Chrysler discontinued last month.

I think that the Dart brand is a better fit for such a sporty car. I also agree that very few young people will remember the original Dart, a car that they might only be familiar with from the very cool TV show Mad Men.

It seems that its new Hero Recon line of toys, which lets you customize your own robot creature online, is a little bit sexist.

The problem?

You can name your new creature from the list of 22 names, but only boys' names are available.

At least one LEGO blogger has responded to this news with a resounding "argh." But LEGO has assured at least one fan that they are working on getting girls' names on the product.

Letting fans personalize a product is always a problem, of course. They will invariably choose course or offensive names, and this has a spin-off effect on the product and, ultimately, the brand name.

Girls may be better suited for the product anyway. One tester at Geek Dad found that his daughter was more inclined to create her own product as LEGO suggests, versus his son, who "didn't feel required to put the pieces on in the generally accepted way. Upside down, in the wrong place, etc., was how he preferred to do it."

Make no mistake, this is a warlike product. The figures get armour and helmets. The website tells us that "Heroes from the Recon unit can wear multiple types of armor and are trained to use different types of weapons and parts - even those used by Villains, like the Lava Blaster and transparent cladding."

Note the preponderance of the word "friend" here. None of the top toys aimed at girls seem warlike at all.

This leads to an interesting discussion around gender-appropriate toys. As one irate blogger says, "Little girls are encouraged to stay in the home and do domestic duties. Little boys fight wars, travel, go into space, construct things - the possibilities are endless."

There is an article at Popsop.com that looks at the "Everything Everywhere," new company name resulting from the merger of Orange and T-Mobile.

It's a name which the company's CEO has criticized as "silly."

Darren Foley, the author of the piece, notes that after the dust from a merger has settled, "It comes to the brand name to encompass everything positive and progressive about the new organization."

He points out that many post-merger brands don't work because they are too "cumbersome," saying "The brand names of ABInBev, PriceWaterhouseCooper, JP MorganChase, ExxonMobil and Sanofi Aventis are a few in the long list of unwieldy combinations."

The "Everything Everywhere" company name appears to be a holding company name for Orange and T-Mobile in the UK. Although merged company names that would be less visible to the consumer and maybe targeted more to the financial community gives one wide latitude for naming a merged entity. "Everything Everywhere" is beyond silly. It's juvenile.

Isn't "Everything Everywhere" a tagline that would be great to support a company name? I think so.

Airline naming immediately comes to mind. The merger between United and Continental has brought forth "United Continental," a name I am sure Foley would find boring and cumbersome.

The problem is that thousands of employees are involved, and they fear that one airline will swallow up the other and hurt their position within the company.

Also, of course, passengers want to stay with an airline they know, so launching United Continental is not exactly as difficult as launching a totally new, wacky brand name like, say "Scoot," a new airline overseas.

Given the large equity that both names had in different regions of the U.S., it would be a poor move to let go of either name.

Sometimes, however, one name wins out.

Look at what happened with the merger between Frontier Airlines and Midwest. The Midwest name was dropped, but they kept the Frontier name.

Dropping the Frontier name would have caused chaos with the workers, who actually took to the streets in Denver to retain the name and especially the airline's trademark, pictures of animals featured on the tails of the airplanes.

Had the new merged entity been totally rebranded, there would have literally been riots.

My impression is that this company name was created when the senior executives of Orange and T-Mobile were at dinner and one of them said, "You know, this merger means that consumers will have everything everywhere." And someone else at the dinner table said, "Let's make that the company name."

Or maybe this occurred over drinks, lots of drinks.

I am not one to make predictions, but I would not be surprised if "Everything Everywhere" does not survive.